International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer
Marine Habitat Committee ICES CM 2001/E:07
Ref: ACME, ACE
REPORT OF THE
WORKING GROUP ON MARINE HABITAT MAPPING
Galway, Ireland 3–6 April 2001
This report is not to be quoted without prior consultation with the General Secretary. The document is a report of an expert group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 OPENING...1
2 MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING AS DEFINED BY THE TERMS OF REFERENCE ...1
3 PROGRESS IN HABITAT CLASSIFICATION ...1
3.1 Introduction on the Outcome of the Second OSPAR/ICES/EEA Workshop on Habitat Classification and Biogeographic Regions (Southampton)...1
3.2 Progress Made in the EUNIS Classification of Pelagic Habitats ...2
3.3 Suggested Implementation of Proposals made at Southampton, September 2000 ...3
3.4 Theme Session on Classification and Mapping of Marine Habitats, ICES Annual Science Conference 20004 3.5 Discussion on the Revision of the Pelagic Habitat Units in EUNIS...4
3.6 Discussion of How to Proceed ...5
3.7 Proposals for Future Work ...6
4 PROGRESS IN HABITAT MAPPING ...7
4.1 The ICES Workshop on Deep-Seabed Survey Technologies (WKDSST)...7
4.2 Habitat Maps for the North Sea...8
4.2.1 Habitat Map of Southern North Sea and Wadden Sea ...8
4.2.2 Habitat Map for the Central North Sea...9
4.2.3 High-resolution techniques for mapping seabed biotopes in the UK ...9
4.2.4 Building a benthic monitoring network—Pilot Study in Brittany (Avant Project sommaire de REseau BENThique—REBENT)...9
4.3 Habitat Mapping and Classification in Canada ...10
4.4 Deep-sea Maps ...10
4.5 Discussion How to Proceed...10
4.6 Proposals for Future Work ...11
4.7 Recommended Future Work...12
5 DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLOGICAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MARINE HABITATS ...12
6 RECOMMENDATIONS...13
6.1 Proposed Terms of Reference for WGMHM for 2002...14
ANNEX 1: AGENDA...15
ANNEX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ...18
ANNEX 3: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR 2001...20
ANNEX 4: STATE OF PROGRESS ON PELAGIC HABITAT CLASSIFICATION ...21
ANNEX 5: PROPOSED ADAPTATIONS IN THE EUNIS CLASSIFICATION...23
ANNEX 6: DRAFT EUNIS HABITAT CLASSIFICATION: CRITERIA FOR PELAGIC HABITATS (A7) TO LEVEL 3 ...24
ANNEX 7: REPORT OF WORKSHOP ON DEEP-SEA SURVEY TECHNOLOGIES ...27
ANNEX 8: MARINE HABITAT MAPPING OF THE SOUTHERN NORTH SEA AND THE INTERNATIONAL WADDEN SEA ...32
ANNEX 9: HABITAT MAP FOR THE CENTRAL NORTH SEA... 34
ANNEX 10: HIGH-RESOLUTION MAPPING OF SEABED BIOTOPES IN UK COASTAL WATERS...37
ANNEX 11: PROPOSAL FOR HABITAT MAPPING PILOT STUDY IN THE NORTH SEA...40
ANNEX 12: GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT ...41
@#
1 OPENING
The Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM) convened in Galway, Ireland from 3–6 April 2001. The participants at the meeting were welcomed by Anthony Grehan (Host) on behalf of the Martin Ryan Institute of the National University of Ireland, Galway and the sponsor of the meeting, the Marine Institute in Galway, Ireland.
Eric Jagtman (Chair) opened the meeting. He announced that the Study Group had been re-established as the Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM) at the ICES 2000 Council Meeting in Bruges, Belgium (CM 2000/E:08).
A provisional agenda for the meeting was discussed, which led to certain amendments. The agenda, as it was adopted for the meeting, is included in the report as Annex 1.
The meeting was attended by nineteen participants, who were asked to introduce themselves. A full list of participants is given in Annex 2.
Eric Jagtman concluded by recalling the first SGMHM meeting in Oban, Scotland, in 1999. He noted the progress made since then and expressed the hope that WGMHM would continue to make a positive contribution in the future.
2 MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING AS DEFINED BY THE TERMS OF REFERENCE The Terms of Reference for the meeting (see Annex 3) were introduced by Eric Jagtman. He pointed out that during the past year, three important meetings had taken place: 1) the OSPAR/ICES/EEA Workshop on Marine Habitat Classification held in Southampton (United Kingdom) in September 2000, 2) the Workshop on Deep-Sea Survey Technologies held in Bergen (Norway) in January 2001, and 3) the Theme Session on Classification and Mapping of Marine Habitats held during the Annual Science Conference in Bruges (Belgium) in September 2000. The results of these meetings will be presented at the meeting.
A short discussion followed when Eric Jagtman informed the meeting that the intended second ARC meeting to be organised by Rebecca Allee (NOAA) did not go ahead. The present state of the United States of America (USA) habitat classification work was unclear because no USA participant was present. Paul Boudreau informed the meeting that Rebecca Allee had moved from her former position and that it may be necessary to establish new contacts with regard to advancing habitat classification in the USA. Thomas Noji and Gary Greene were suggested as initial contacts. Paul Boudreau stated that he would pursue contacts within the Gulf of Maine work.
Dorian Moss asked whether EUNIS should be applied to the entire ICES area. Eric Jagtman in reply stated that feedback from the USA was needed before any such decision could be made.
David Connor expressed the opinion that the main focus of the WGMHM is on habitat mapping rather than classification which can be used as an implementation tool. There is a need to focus on the end-use of the mapping effort supported by habitat classification to understand how best the USA contribution can be integrated.
3 PROGRESS IN HABITAT CLASSIFICATION
3.1 Introduction on the Outcome of the Second OSPAR/ICES/EEA Workshop on Habitat Classification and Biogeographic Regions (Southampton)
TOR A: review the results of the Second OSPAR/ICES/EEA Workshop on Habitat Classification
David Connor reported on the joint OSPAR/ICES/EEA Workshop on Marine Habitat Classification held in Southampton from 18–22 September 2000 (see OSPAR-BDC 00/6/Info.1-E). Key areas covered were:
• Development of the EUNIS Classification, particularly at Levels 4 and 5;
• How best to deal with biogeographical variations;
• Development of a complementary marine landscape/habitat complex classification scheme.
The main outcomes were:
• Rocky habitats were further checked and refined, but the proposed classification requires more OSPAR-wide detail at Level 4.
• Sediment habitats were further developed, especially for offshore. Biogenic structures were moved to Level 3.
• Deep Sea - a major revision of the classification structure was proposed.
• Pelagic Realm - a major revision of the classification structure took place, the new proposals will be discussed at this WGMHM meeting (Section 3.2 and 3.5 of this report).
• Biogeography - recommend Level 4 to describe functional habitat and Level 5 to show biogeographic variation.
The results of the workshop were contained in a summary record which was presented to:
• The Marine Habitat Committee at the ICES Annual Science Conference in September 2000.
• EEA. This was followed up by a document written by Cynthia Davies and Dorian Moss explaining how proposals made in Southampton could be implemented in the EUNIS classification (Section 3.3 of this report).
• The OSPAR Biodiversity Committee (BDC) in November 2000.
The OSPAR Biodiversity Committee was advised that the classification needs to move to an operational level, and was asked to adopt the classification for use in OSPAR activities (e.g., EcoQOs, threatened habitat work). Three suggested areas for future work were proposed, with varying degrees of cost. OSPAR chose to carry out:
• A review of literature describing marine habitats from different geographic areas to improve the OSPAR-wide classification. Most Contracting Parties had signed up to undertake this work over the coming year.
• Habitat mapping work should be further considered.
The UK is advancing the classification development through a top-down/bottom-up approach coupling the existing MNCR BioMar Classification with the OSPAR-wide review of the literature. The UK classification is being further refined through detailed analysis of survey data. This information will eventually be collated to feed into the EUNIS classification.
The UK DETR, in an ongoing Review of Marine Nature Conservation, will develop a UK-wide marine landscape classification.
A short discussion followed when Brendan Ball asked whether the top-down approach met the bottom-up approach seamlessly. David Connor replied that there was a significant gap that had been plugged by developing Level 4 biotope complexes. Dorian Moss stated that there was a need to generalise at the lower levels to facilitate integration with the top-down approach. Brendan Ball informed the meeting that the ICES Benthos Ecology Working Group had found that it was relatively easy to use Levels 1 to 3 of EUNIS, but the information was so general that the exercise was of little practical value. Craig Brown said that detailed survey work facilitated biotope description at Level 5, but it was still difficult at times to fit the biotopes into the higher levels of the EUNIS framework, particularly when complexes were encountered. Paul Boudreau commented that the scale of this problem needed to be assessed.
Dick de Jong stated that it is important to look at processes; he felt that too much attention is paid to sediment composition alone. David Connor said that the classification system will be used in different ways and illustrated his point with the example of kelp forest classification. Broadscale acoustic mapping distinguishes physical differences in kelp density between sites, but does not account for differences in wave exposure which has a profound effect on the associated biological communities.
3.2 Progress Made in the EUNIS Classification of Pelagic Habitats
TOR E: prepare a strategy plan for how to deal with pelagic habitats, taking into account the outcome of the Southampton workshop
Yolanda Sagarminaga reported on the progress made in the EUNIS classification of pelagic habitats.
The presentation is included in Annex 4. Major revision of the pelagic habitats classification was proposed in the second OSPAR/ICES/EEA Workshop on Habitat Classification held in Southampton in September 2000. A recommendation was made on the need for achieving a satisfactory theoretical classification of pelagic habitats up to Level 4 and encourage actions to map the habitats described and test them with existing data on pelagic marine resources. Mapping to test the classification will be carried out with data from the Bay of Biscay as part of a Ph.D.
project undertaken by Yolanda Sagarminaga.
Some questions arose regarding how to deal with different pelagic events such as zooplankton migration, ecosystems associated with ephemeral algae, floating objects, migratory species and seasonal variation. The inclusion of these cases into the classification requires an examination of real data to check the validity of the theoretical classification proposed.
Regarding the mapping difficulties expected in a system as dynamic as the pelagic, it was said that as long as communities are related to conditions defining their habitats, the dynamics of these habitats would not affect the actual distribution of their associated communities. This would mean that there is no need for the inclusion of extra units in the classification system, as long as the existing units will sufficiently express the dynamics of the system.
Discussion was raised concerning how the proposed pelagic habitat classification could be tested with real data and how to proceed in this work. Suggestions were made to bring this to the attention of the ICES Oceanography Committee, asking this Committee to include a remit in the terms of reference of one of its working groups. Other suggestions recommended a literature review, as was decided in the OSPAR Biodiversity Committee for marine benthic habitats.
This review calls upon national authorities to provide sampling data from marine benthic monitoring to support further testing of the revised EUNIS classification. WGMHM, in view of item e) of its Terms of Reference (prepare a strategy plan how to deal with pelagic habitats) decided to spend an extra session on the discussion of pelagic habitats on the basis of a second revision of the proposed pelagic habitat structure (Section 3.5 of this report).
3.3 Suggested Implementation of Proposals made at Southampton, September 2000 TOR D: collate comments to the EUNIS classification system
Dorian Moss presented the EUNIS habitat classification and progress since the Southampton OSPAR/ICES/EEA workshop. The presentation is included as Annex 5 of this report. Dorian reminded the WGMHM of the aims of the classification, its origins, and how the different interest groups (including ICES) fit into its development. He outlined the principles of EUNIS and its future plans. Suggested implementation of proposals made at Southampton, September 2000, had been prepared by Cynthia Davies and himself and were circulated in advance of the meeting. They had synthesised the proposals with the pre-existing units in the classification outside the scope of OSPAR/ICES (i.e., Mediterranean and Baltic) and omitted them from discussion in Southampton. Attention was drawn to comments showing where further work was required, particularly to combine elements from different classifications into a single coherent EUNIS system. He summarised the relatively minor changes to the benthic habitats in A1 to A4, and the proposals for complete revision of the deep seabed habitats (now A5 and A6), pelagic habitats (A7) and the new A8, Ice-associated marine habitats. The proposals for A7 represented a further update on those presented earlier in the day by Yolanda Sagarminaga.
In discussion, the points raised included:
• the need to ensure compatibility with the needs of the Water Framework Directive (this is an EU, not an ICES, issue);
• the EUNIS website MRW.wallonie.be/dgrne/sibw/EUNIS/home.html which is available to all, but does not include the proposals currently under discussion: the possibility to show these new proposals would be followed up by Dorian Moss and Cynthia Davies;
• USA initiatives appear to be temporarily suspended in relation to this Working Group, but Paul Boudreau reported that the cross-border Gulf of Maine group is using EUNIS;
• mechanisms (e.g., a further OSPAR/ICES/EEA workshop) to take EUNIS forward and resolve the questions which had been flagged for further attention. This could be combined with follow-up of the results of the OSPAR literature review. The pelagic classification should be developed further at the present meeting;
• future work on EUNIS also needs to involve the Mediterranean and Baltic experts, who may not always be involved with the Conventions.
3.4 Theme Session on Classification and Mapping of Marine Habitats, ICES Annual Science Conference 2000
TOR A: review the results of the Theme Session on Classification and Mapping of Marine Habitats
Dick de Jong reported on the Theme Session on Marine Habitat Classification and Mapping at the 2000 ICES Annual Science Conference, Bruges. Fifteen papers had been presented in two sessions, which had been attended by approximately 75 and 50 participants, respectively. The abstracts are available, and a CD-ROM containing all the papers is due for publication by ICES for sale either before or at the next Annual Science Conference. General common points that emerged were the importance of habitat classification and mapping at an international level, and the needs for standardisation and cooperation. Acceptance of EUNIS to Level 4 was meeting some of these aims, but agreement was needed on goals and the appropriate level of detail. It was illustrated that the relationships between habitat maps, habitat classification and mapping programmes are driven by external goals and technology. All these elements then feed into a habitat database.
3.5 Discussion on the Revision of the Pelagic Habitat Units in EUNIS
TOR E: prepare a strategy plan for how to deal with pelagic habitats, taking into account the outcome of the Southampton workshop
Yolanda Sagarminaga presented an overview of the preliminary pelagic classification as revised at the Southampton workshop.
During that workshop there was not sufficient expertise present on the neuston and bentho-pelagic interface to further consider this aspect of the classification, so major emphasis was put on the water column sensu stricto.
A problem arose with the definition of “vertical mixing” of the water column. A clear definition, on which the WGMHM can agree, seems to be extremely important.
The EUNIS level 4 units within the pelagic habitat turned out to be geographically defined (these units should have a ecological rather than a geographical meaning).
Criteria for short, medium, and long residence times were discussed. It was suggested to define “short” as < 1 day,
“medium” as 1 to 14 days, and “long” as longer than 14 days, based on phytoplankton turnover rates.
Criteria for “freshwater influence” were discussed. Discussion identified fully marine conditions with salinity ranging from 30 PSU up to about 35 PSU. With such a definition, it might be difficult to classify appropriately some North Sea coastal waters using EUNIS. Regional differences have to be taken into account. It was suggested to define freshwater influences in relation to the regional marine conditions. Problems arise when trying to classify the Baltic Sea.
Furthermore, temporal effects are important.
Since at this moment the EUNIS level 4 units are too regional and non-exhaustive, the units and unit levels will be reconsidered. Through mapping of the habitats at a local scale (cf. Test cases), the consistency of the (new) level 4 units can be checked.
It was argued that the “stratification” questions should be changed to queries about the gradients present in the system.
Furthermore, a gradient is present or absent. The use of the term “weak stratification/gradient” will lead to confusion and should thus be avoided.
In addition to gradients in salinity, other environmental gradients (e.g., temperature and oxygen) are biologically/ecologically relevant and have thus to be taken into account within the classification system.
The bentho-pelagic component is difficult to position within the pelagic EUNIS compartment. Hyperbenthic assemblages are related to the bottom (e.g., food resources, diurnal vertical migrations). It was decided to define the bentho-pelagic compartment as complexes within the EUNIS classification. Experts (e.g., SMB of Ghent University, Belgium) within this field will be contacted and asked for comments.
A revised version of the pelagic part of the EUNIS classification, taking into account the above-mentioned remarks, was discussed on Thursday. The outcome of the discussion led to a newly revised structure for pelagic habitats within the
EUNIS system. This new proposal is included in the report as Annex 6. Cynthia Davies recorded comments. There was not full agreement on the revision. Participants were requested to submit comments to Cynthia Davies by 1 May. Two outstanding problems are:
1) A7.5 and A7.B raised questions whether conditions with no gradient in deeper water are biologically the same as fully mixed high-energy systems. Under the current proposals these units, A7.5 and A7.B, follow the same path as stratified waters, thus contradicting the criteria in a35. Options discussed to solve the issue were:
• deleting the units if they duplicate A7.2 and A7.3;
• retaining the units, but clarifying the distinctions and;
• revising the criteria in a35.
2) A7.2 with regard to its ability to classify estuaries properly.
Cynthia Davies and Dorian Moss were advised to forward the proposal to a group of experts outside the Working Group for further review. Potential reviewers named were: Juan Brown, CEFAS at Lowestoft, Bill Turrel, Aberdeen (recommended by Matthew Service), plus names recommended earlier from the Southampton workshop.
3.6 Discussion of How to Proceed
TOR A: the Working Group will prepare material for a discussion on the various classification systems, their advantages and disadvantages, to be dealt with by ACME
WGMHM was unable to discuss the proposed US Classification as there had been no update. The Chair then asked the participants to discuss why there was a need for the classification and mapping and were there demonstrated or projected uses of the classification and habitat mapping. In addition, were there advantages and disadvantages to these systems?
The following examples are potential and/or known uses of habitat mapping;
1) Fishery related issues, e.g., essential fish habitats;
2) Biodiversity issues/ biological resource management, e.g., SAC management;
3) Determining conservation value based on spatial extent and distribution of habitats and species;
4) Risk assessment;
5) Spatial modelling for management and/or decision support systems and to give a greater understanding of the ecosystem;
6) Conflict resolution;
7) EIS / contaminant/ pollution monitoring;
8) Long-term monitoring programmes;
9) Stratified design of monitoring programmes;
10) Geohazard identification;
11) Excellent communication tool for education/ increasing public awareness / informing policymakers and stakeholders;
12) Resource valuation, items 1–11 resulting in greater integrated management.
It was recognised that there needed to be data standards, greater collaboration between countries undertaking mapping projects, and that the mapping of marine habitats would be of high value for ICES.
WGMHM recommended that ICES support the recommendations of the Bergen workshop on Deep-Seabed Survey Technologies and that the results be presented to the ICES Annual Science Conference. The participants requested that the recommendations be forwarded to the Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (ACE) for endorsement The workshop also proposed that the Bergen recommendations be further developed and suggested that a concerted action for funding might be one way forward.
It was felt that it was difficult to relate acoustic data to the EUNIS classification. Was there a need for a separate, intermediate, working classification that would relate all the possible habitat types that would relate to acoustic signals to generate an unsupervised classification? This was discussed using the following diagram:
MAPPING
TECHNOLOGY
Biological based classification
Working classification
detailed biological information
Additional information
The mapping of very large areas of seabed would probably only have very limited groundtruthing. Groundtruthing was needed to produce a more refined predictive habitat map based on a standard classification such as EUNIS. This led to a discussion on data interpretation using different techniques.
The following were recognised:
• A wide range of survey techniques is used for collecting data: remote sensing (e.g., aerial/seabed) and sampling (ROV, grab, core, trawl, etc.). Each technique needs standards for data collection, storage and interpretation.
• The interpretation of each technique will give rise to a series of classes which needs to be consistently derived by different workers.
• There is a need for a consistent means of integrating these data and/or correlating the classes derived from the different sampling techniques (e.g., acoustic and benthic sample data).
• There is a need to integrate data from different techniques to produce interpreted maps, e.g., of habitats.
• Full integration should lead to a robust habitat classification enabling the use of remote and sample data to be matched to a single classification system.
• Large-scale integration of data from different projects and across countries will require:
Common data formats;
Common data interpretation;
Sharing of data;
Cooperative programmes between organisations/countries Research.
3.7 Proposals for Future Work
Paul Boudreau presented a table of existing resources and required future work using the issues raised from the presentations and discussions beforehand. This outlook was accepted with the provision of intermediate stepping stones to achieve these ends. By examining the relationship between acoustic signal classes and biological classes, substrate/habitat models may be developed which will facilitate extrapolation of groundtruth/biological data over large areas linked to acoustic information. In addition problems between differing sampling techniques, whether acoustical or biological and difficulties in classification, need to be further tested by application to existing data sets.
We have: Future work:
Maps and data. Problems in data access, quality and visualisation.
Standardising and unifying maps from existing data for the whole OSPAR/ICES area.
New technologies. Acoustic technologies are still under development and applying them to habitat
mapping still requires testing.
Classification from local biology to ensure that habitat definitions are representative and applicable when tested with existing data.
Localised biological data. Lots of biological data are available, but over very small spatial areas and
there are problems in quality and taxonomic changes.
Making best use of the developing technologies and linking relationships between broad-scale
acoustic classes to biological classes
Standards for acceptable sampling efforts for biological groundtruthing are not currently available.
TOR E: the Working Group will prepare material for a discussion on the various classification systems, their advantages and disadvantages, to be dealt with by ACME
WGMHM to date has only considered the development of a single classification system (EUNIS) over its two-year rapid development. The group acknowledges that, whilst it is not finished, it has achieved a good consensus on the structure to EUNIS level 4 and much of level 5. Whilst further development is important, the perceived shortfalls in the system are in the Baltic and Mediterranean, where WGMHM is lacking in specific knowledge to resolve these issues and in the more detailed aspects for the Northeast Atlantic. There had been some input by a few representatives from these countries at previous meetings, however, they were not represented at this meeting to attempt to resolve the difficulties.
The WGMHM therefore proposes a shift of emphasis toward the development of habitat maps. These maps will then be used to further test and develop the EUNIS system.
4 PROGRESS IN HABITAT MAPPING
4.1 The ICES Workshop on Deep-Seabed Survey Technologies (WKDSST)
TOR C: review the outcome of the ICES Workshop on Deep-Water Survey Technologies and the development of standards for marine habitat mapping
A review of the Bergen Workshop on Deep-Seabed Survey Technologies was given by Anthony Grehan. The presentation is included in the report as Annex 7. The workshop was set up: 1) to initiate collaboration between institutes, 2) to discuss survey technologies, strategies, data formats and mapping products, and 3) to cover a broad range of environments by addressing four objectives:
a) compile and review information on survey technology;
b) identify and compile information from existing mapping data sets;
c) consider harmonization and standardization; and d) consider collaboration between ICES countries.
During the first and second days, 23 lectures were presented. During the whole workshop, three working groups each dealt with three group tasks. The group tasks were: 1) strategies for collecting field data and technologies for habitat mapping, 2) formats for marine data and database requirements, and 3) large-scale marine habitat mapping and cooperation needs. The results from these working groups were discussed in a plenary session and resulted in the identification of general recommendations.
A proposal for a Concerted Action, to the EU, on deep-sea mapping was considered during the Bergen workshop. A follow-up meeting to advance such a proposal will be organised in association with the Geology of Marine Habitat special session (31/05/2001 and 01/06/2001).
An ad hoc steering group was formed to promote collaboration in future work for deep-water habitat mapping. Specific areas of interest are the development of acoustic thematic mapping and groundtruthing protocols.
At the Halifax meeting it is proposed that geographical and depth ranges with a range of habitats from coastal to the deep sea be presented as case studies. At present there is a joint Canadian and US initiative to begin mapping of scallop habitats in the Gulf of Maine.
Within the Irish Seabed Mapping project 20 % of the area has already been mapped. Special attention was put on offshore waters. Mapping of the inshore waters will be available through several local mapping initiatives. Similar projects are running in other ICES countries: Norway, Belgium (main attention on sandbank areas), Spain, France, and Northern Ireland.
4.2 Habitat Maps for the North Sea
TOR B: report on progress made in the joint WGMHM/WGEXT/BEWG plans on habitat mapping projects (habitat map of the North Sea, Wadden Sea, deep-sea map, OSPAR area map to level 3 of the EUNIS classification system)
4.2.1 Habitat Map of Southern North Sea and Wadden Sea
This item was introduced by Dick de Jong. The full presentation is included in this report as Annex 8. The development of a habitat map for the North Sea and Wadden Sea was proposed from the Oban meeting. It was acknowledged that Kirsten Jerosch carried out most of the study. The goals of the study were to develop a habitat map to a EUNIS Level 3 classification, to identify for future studies problems associated with data collection, fitting data to the classification scheme and assessing data availability. People were very cooperative in providing data via database access. However, certain problems did present themselves:
• Meta-data were insufficient and inadequate;
• Different classification systems were used;
• Different base levels were used in bathymetric maps;
• No GIS or digital copies of some maps were available;
• Definitions were ambiguous, e.g., mud?
• Comprehensiveness of data was insufficient from some areas, e.g., Danish Wadden Sea data;
•
Many maps were presented pre-classified and therefore could not be used in a new classification system.A CEFAS data set was assessed using two classification mechanisms IndVal and TWINSPAN. IndVal identifies indicator species and assemblages and develops clusters according to these. TWINSPAN clusters, as well as clusters incorporating depth and sediment composition, were input into the model. Both agreed reasonably well with the EUNIS classification of the CEFAS data set. Recommendations of the results to date are:
a) Ensure that meta-data are accurate and consistent among data sets b) Retain raw data so as to avoid passing on just pre-classified data;
c) Develop a common data format.
Craig Brown questioned how the output from the two classification systems agreed with the analysis carried out originally on the CEFAS data by Hubert Rees (CEFAS). Dick de Jong answered by saying that the project has not progressed to the level of producing maps yet; this will be in subsequent reports. A report outlining the data collection methods, etc., has been prepared.
David Connor described the work as a valuable exercise that highlighted practical (logistical) problems associated with large-scale studies. He queried the availability of other data sets that might be comprehensive similar to the CEFAS data. He cited the British Geological Survey data that are being reanalysed in light of the Habitats Directive. Dick de Jong commented that it would be nice to have the data, but that it was prohibitively expensive to acquire.
Eric Jagtman wondered whether a goal was to develop a EUNIS classification map with all of the pooled data sets. Dick de Jong stated that the data fit EUNIS Levels 3 and 4 well, and demonstrated with Dutch continental shelf assemblages.
It was pointed out that handling data in this way was a good stepping-stone towards developing Ecological Quality Objectives. Various resolutions of data were apparent, e.g., biological data were scattered, and sediment data were more regular and bathymetric data were well defined. How is the resolution of the habitat maps defined? Dick de Jong answered that it would be a problem in rocky habitats. However, for the Dutch systems they tended to be homogeneous systems that were relatively easy to classify. More complex areas would present significant problems.
4.2.2 Habitat Map for the Central North Sea
This item was introduced by James Massey. His presentation is included in Annex 9. The goal of this study was to map the biological communities of the North Sea and make data available for multiple users in a user-defined format. The reasons for developing the map were because there were no tools for Environmental Risk Assessment and for offshore industries requiring EIAs. Some project constraints were that there were no provisions for collecting new data and only existing data were evaluated. The area studied was the central North Sea because 150–200 data sets were identified from meta-data sources. None of these realised any data. A GIS database was developed using ArcView. Problems identified with long-term data sets were, inter alia, name changes of species, and formatting differences. The database could distinguish various faunal groups and assemblages with various confidence limits depending upon the quality and quantity of the data.
The data could be used for evaluation of sites over time, if the amount, detail and consistency of information was sufficient.
The session concluded with a series of comments relating to the status of other classification systems, e.g., BioMar, Marlin and how information on each could be garnered. Dorian Moss pointed out that the BioMar classification can be viewed on four websites – JNCC (www.jncc.gov.uk/mermaid), MarlIN (www.marlin.ac.uk), EUNIS habitats and the National Biodiversity Network (NBN). In the short to medium time frame the aim will be to focus on the NBN gateway at www.searchnbn.net as the first point of entry to all biodiversity information of interest to the UK.
4.2.3 High-resolution techniques for mapping seabed biotopes in the UK
Craig Brown introduced a three-year research project that was started in 1998 and was funded by MAFF. The presentation is included in the report as Annex 10. The aim of the project was to map assemblages on coarse sediment substrates which would be suitable for sand and gravel extraction.
The techniques used were sidescan sonar to give 100 % cover of the study sites and the AGDS RoxAnn and QTC.
Groundtruthing was by a mini-Hammon grab with a camera attached, 2-metre beam trawl, and underwater video. There were four study sites on the south coast of England. Biological data were analysed using multivariate statistics and characterising species were determined using PRIMER. The results demonstrated that assemblages of species found may depend on gear, as the characterising species for assemblages determined using a Hammon grab were different from those using a beam trawl.
In determining the biotopes all the data, e.g., data from grab samples, beam trawl, sediment characteristics, sidescan sonar, etc., were used. This resulted in twelve assemblages being identified. These assemblages had not yet been related to the EUNIS classification. This was the next step but it appeared that they would fit into the category of mixed sediments.
It was demonstrated that biotope description is biased by the sampling gear, the gear deployed and the number of samples. The positional accuracy will determine the resolution of biotope distribution. This will be particularly relevant in long-term monitoring with repeat sampling.
4.2.4 Building a benthic monitoring network—Pilot Study in Brittany (Avant Project sommaire de REseau BENThique—REBENT)
This item was introduced by Brigitte Guillaumont. The aims of the project are to: 1) determine the contribution of existing networks, 2) service the increasing demand for benthic data when the current knowledge is very heterogeneous, and 3) support the management of SAC sites designated under the Habitat Directive along the Brittany coast. The objectives are to create an inventory and analysis of existing data, tools, networks, etc.
The project will determine existing data and reference maps, develop a monitoring strategy, examine available tools and methods, etc. The costs involved, planning and human organisation needed to conduct the tasks, have to be examined.
Twenty research centres are involved with IFREMER as the coordinator, and the project encompasses a wide range of
data that will be entered into a GIS system. The priorities are the tidal zone, photic zone 0 m to 20–30 m, and deep coastal waters 20–30 m to the territorial sea limit.
Examples of different types of data available were shown including some substrate and habitat maps of the coast of Brittany. A strategy will have to be developed as to how the data gaps will be filled. There will be two approaches: (1) to produce basic maps and then (2) to produce more accurate and detailed maps. The project will try to map using the EUNIS classification but mapping may have to be at different levels, e.g., Levels 4 or 5.
4.3 Habitat Mapping and Classification in Canada
Paul Boudreau presented a summary of Canadian benthic mapping and classification activities. He drew attention to:
• a major funding proposal for Canadian seabed mapping, which had been delayed by Canadian elections, but that he hoped was to receive funding soon;
• Brian Todd’s (NRCan) activities on multibeam mapping;
• mapping work in the proposed marine protected area (The Gully) off Nova Scotia;
• a special session of the Geological Association of Canada on “The Geology of Marine Habitat” is to be held in St.
John’s, Newfoundland in May 2001;
• the Marine Invertebrate Diversity Initiative (MIDI) website, that includes the EUNIS classification;
• the CoastGIS international conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia in May 2001.
4.4 Deep-sea Maps
The development of a large grid scale map for the OSPAR area as well as the development of maps for the deep sea are subject to funding. No progress could be reported for these issues.
4.5 Discussion How to Proceed
TOR F: prepare a proposal for the development of a GIS database for habitats, with cost estimates included and potential sources of data to be submitted
There was general agreement amongst WGMHM participants that there is a need to coordinate and compile a catalogue/database of existing data sets which are of use in habitat mapping activities. There was a suggestion that meta-data should be collated by ICES to allow greater integration and distribution of data sets which would facilitate the production of broad-scale habitat maps. It was commented that ICES is already attempting to “streamline” its existing databases.
Following this discussion, the question was raised as to whether or not there was already an umbrella group which could take the lead in setting up an international meta-database/GIS. At a national level it was felt that national oceanographic data centres were not updating their databases frequently enough, and that not all relevant data were stored in such centres. Following this discussion two options were proposed:
1) National Oceanographic Data Centres should be encouraged to take on this role.
2)
An ICES data centre is set up where maps produced at a national level using standards set up by WGMHM can be made available.No agreement was reached amongst the group as to the best way forward.
There was agreement that the role of setting standards for data formats, meta-data, etc., should not fall to WGMHM.
This is a huge and costly process and other organisations are better placed to do this (e.g., International Hydrographic Organisation). WGMHM should, however, be establishing guidelines for the production of habitat maps (e.g., EUNIS Level 3 habitat maps).
4.6 Proposals for Future Work
WGMHM proposed to continue with the North Sea habitat map, extending it to cover the whole of the North Sea.
Objectives:
• To advance habitat mapping to support EcoQOs (OSPAR/BDC), and the requirements of relevant ICES Working Groups, for the North Sea
• The map will support all points on the list of uses of habitat maps (Section 3.6).
A proposal outline was drafted by James Massey, Dick de Jong and Anthony Grehan (see Annex 11). The Working Group decided that a group consisting of David Connor, Eric Jagtman and James Massey should draft a more detailed proposal. This proposal could then be used to apply for an EU Concerted Action funding, to provide funds for a coordinator and specific tasks necessary for significant advancement, such as data acquisition, providing a website forum for data exchange, and identifying and involving significant parties to clarify problems in metadata standards and specific expert mapping issues. Further, the proposal could be submitted for comment to the EU and to assess support.
It was also proposed to submit the proposal for comment at the ACE meeting in August, OSPAR in November, and the North Sea Conference.
A non-exhaustive list of relevant data sets, identified as required for the production of habitat mapping, was also compiled by the group:
BENTHIC DATA:
BATHYMETRY
• admiralty charts
• multibeam data
• direct observations SUBSTRATA (sediment grain size/rock)
• sidescan sonar
• AGDS data (QTC/RoxAnn)
• grabs
• direct observations (divers/beach sweeps)
• remote sensing
• aerial photography
• video EXPOSURE
• current meters
• modelling
• indication from biology
• fetch BIOLOGY
• grabs
• trawls
• acoustics (QTC/RoxAnn/sidescan sonar)
• video
• divers/beach survey
PELAGIC DATA:
MIXING/GRADIENTS/SALINITY
• CTD
• modelling
• satellite imagery
• meteorological data
• mooring RESIDENCE TIME
• tide tables
Whilst all the above data can be used in habitat maps, it was noted that maps can be produced without data from all of the categories.
4.7 Recommended Future Work
Taking into account the discussions at the Bergen Workshop and during this WGMHM meeting in Galway, the following general issues with respect to recommended future work include:
• Development of thematic deep-water maps;
• Continuation and expansion of the North Sea mapping pilot studies (Annex 11);
• Development of mapping technologies and standards.
Further development and refinement of the EUNIS classification system should be undertaken by EEA and OSPAR in the immediate future, but should be informed by its practical application in habitat mapping undertaken by ICES.
5 DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLOGICAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MARINE HABITATS Hein Rune Skjoldal stated that, in preparation for the North Sea Ministers Conference, Ecological Quality Objectives for inter alia, habitats in the North Sea are being developed. There is a need to develop ecosystem-based approaches to management in the North Sea. There are a number of different possible approaches to this task. An introduction to a workplan to develop EcoQOs was presented. In setting quality objectives, the following criteria might be used:
• representativeness—example of typical habitat;
• coverage or abundance, e.g., small natural range, rare, vulnerable;
• threatened and/or declining.
Tasks foreseen were:
1) to make an inventory of distribution of habitats derived using:
• Low-resolution North Sea map EUNIS Levels 3 and 4;
• Higher-resolution maps - EUNIS Level 5;
• A network of national data centres/holders;
• Marine Protected Areas (MPA) - compilation of information.
2) to identify habitat quality:
• “functional habitats” (e.g., spawning grounds, nursery areas, wintering areas, etc.).
3) to identify threats:
• threatened and/or declining habitats.
Comments made at the meeting:
Criteria for “threatened and/or declining habitats” have been developed by OSPAR but their application is still under discussion.
The North Sea Ministerial Conference may provide an opportunity to inform Governments of the importance of marine habitat mapping to underpin sustainable management of marine resources and make a commitment that this work is furthered.
Habitat mapping will include both the intertidal and the sublittoral zones. The focus and priority will be on areas most in use in the North Sea which will give priority to the nearshore zone.
Broad-scale mapping will not identify habitats that have a rare or small-scale distribution.
The Ministerial Conference is scheduled for around 20 March 2002. A summary report is due in autumn 2001. There will be a stakeholder meeting scheduled for October 2001. The report will synthesise the proposals for EcoQOs 1–10:
1) Reference points for commercial fish species 2) Threatened and declining species
3) Sea mammals 4) Sea birds
5) Fish communities 6) Benthic communities 7) Plankton communities 8) Habitats
9) Nutrient budgets and production 10) Oxygen consumption.
The Advisory Committee on Ecosystems will review all of the proposals in August 2001.
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to progress on the work of the WGMHM, we recommend:
• To endorse the Bergen Workshop recommendations and support follow-up initiatives.
• To continue with the high-resolution mapping, by extending cover age to the whole of the North Sea and possibly the Irish Sea (Annex 11).
• To review existing coarse-grid map systems currently in use to aid selection of WGMHM standards for low- resolution synoptic mapping at the ICES regional scale.
• To produce low-resolution, broad-scale, coarse-grid maps of habitats for the whole ICES area to a mapping standard to be set by the WGMHM. Production of these synoptic maps will require either provision of low-resolution data or completed maps from various participating countries. Within this map, local/regional mapping initiatives could be represented.
• National status reports on mapping and classification will be requested for input.
• WGMHM will explore the setting up of a data exchange platform to service the above initiatives. This should result in the establishment of an ICES habitat mapping meta-database containing standardized and verified meta-data. This should provide information on: difficulties in coupling mapping projects, common problems in classification, data handling and quality issues, development of common goals, and potential overlap with existing projects, and intercalibration of classification, mapping, and development of potential quality checks.
• To facilitate further refinement of the EUNIS pelagic classification. To this end, the WGMHM had put forward a list of names of experts to be consulted. This list includes experts on bentho-pelagic, pelagic and neuston habitats.
6.1 Proposed Terms of Reference for WGMHM for 2002 ICES C.Res. 2001/
The Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (Chair: E. Jagtman, Netherlands) will meet from date-date in venue to review developments in marine habitat classification and habitat mapping, in particular to:
a) collate and review national status reports on marine habitat mapping;
b) discuss progress in the development of high-resolution habitat maps, with a focus on the North Sea and possibly the Irish Sea;
c) discuss progress in the production of low-resolution, broad-scale, coarse-grid maps of habitats for the whole ICES area;
d) discuss progress in the setting up of a data exchange platform to service the above initiatives and to develop standards or best practices for data handling with regard to habitat maps.
References
Foster-Smith et al., 1996. Mapping survey of the littoral and sublittoral biotopes of the Berwickshire coast Scottish Natural Heritage Research, Survey and Monitoring report. No. 60.
ANNEX 1: AGENDA
Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM) in Galway, Ireland 3 APRIL 2001
10.00 Opening (Forster Court Hotel, Galway) by Anthony Grehan (Host) 1) Arrangements for the meeting (working hours, lunch, venue etc.) 2) Participants to introduce themselves
3) Further announcements:
• Article received by Geoff Meaden: Gaining flexibility for marine habitat modelling and mapping
• Invitation by Malcolm Thomson to participate in a future workshop on the SUMARE-project to develop the use of autonomous underwater vehicles for mapping sebad resources (maerl banks and sand banks) (www.mumm.ac.be/SUMARE/)
• Theme session in 2002 on integration of (acoustic) survey technologies and marine biological data
• Development of Ecological Quality Objectives for OSPAR; role of ICES 4) List of documents distributed
(also available from: www.ices.dk/reports/mhc/2001/wgmhm/meeting_documents)
• cres00.doc: terms of reference for WGMHM in 2001
• mhc00.doc: Draft report from the meeting of the Marine Habitat Committee at ASC 2000 in Bruges
• wkshop.pdf: Complete Summary Record of the OSPAR/ICES/EEA Workshop on Marine Habitat Classification held in Southampton from 18–22 September 2000
• osparbdc.pdf: Proposal by UK to OSPAR Biodiversity Committee regarding progress and future work on habitat classification and mapping
• full arc report.doc: summary record of ARC workshop on marine and estuarine ecosystem and habitat classification
• proposals feb01v3.doc: EUNIS HABITAT CLASSIFICATION. Suggested implementation of proposals made at Southampton, September 2000 (Cynthia Davies and Dorian Moss)
• report on theme session.doc: summary record of ASC Theme Session on Marine Habitat Classification and Mapping (Bruges, 2000)
• agenda for the 2001 wgmhm.doc: agenda for WGMHM meeting in Galway, Ireland
• report on Workshop on Deep-Seabed Survey Technologies (version 3; 15 february 2001) 5) Adoption of the Agenda
6) Rapporteurs for the meeting
7) Introduction of Terms of Reference (Eric Jagtman, Chair) 8) Progress in habitat classification
Review the outcome of the Second OSPAR/ICES/EEA Workshop on Habitat Classification and Biogeographic Regions (Southampton):
• Introduction of work done in Southampton; David Connor
• Progress in classification of pelagic habitats; Yolanda Sagarminaga
• Suggested implementation of proposals made at Southampton, September 2000
Further progress in habitat classification:
• Introduction on Canadian developments by Paul Boudreau Review of other reports brought to the working group:
•
Theme Session on Classification and Mapping of Marine Habitats, Bruges Annual Science Conference 2000 (Dick de Jong)4 APRIL 2001
Start of discussion, with the aim to
• prepare a strategy plan for how to deal with pelagic habitats, taking into account the outcomes of the Southampton workshop.
• prepare material for a discussion on the various classification systems, their advantages and disadvantages to be dealt with in ACME (‘how to move forward?’);
• collate comments to the EUNIS classification system to be handed over to the EEA;
• invite comments from WGEXT and WGECO;
•
make proposals for future joint activities (workplan for WGMHM).5 APRIL 2001
Progress in habitat mapping
Review the outcome of the ICES Workshop on Deep-water Survey Technologies and the development of standards for marine habitat mapping:
• Presentation by Anthony Grehan on behalf of Tomas Noji (IMR, Norway).
Habitat maps of the North Sea or Wadden Sea:
• presentation by James Massey (North Sea map)
• presentation by Dick de Jong (North Sea map)
• presentation by Craig Brown Deep sea maps
• Progress in developing deep sea maps OSPAR area map
• Progress in developing OSPAR coarse grid map (information by David Connor) Preparation of guidelines for habitat mapping and data-handling
Discussion on the development of a GIS database for habitats, with cost estimates included
• (CANCELLED) Presentation by Geoff Meaden, Gaining flexibility for Marine Habitat Modelling ands Mapping (Canterbury Christ Church University College). Paper will be distributed among WGMHM members for discussion during the meeting.
• Time allowing: Discussion of results on the development of Ecological Quality Objectives for habitats in the North Sea (OSPAR project, contracted by IMR and RIKZ). Hein Rune Skjoldal from IMR will be present on Thursday to introduce this subject.
• Next year’s meeting: date and venue, including discussion on future work (draft workplan) 6 APRIL 2001
Presentation of draft workshop report (summary record) Adoption of Report
13.00 Close of the meeting
ANNEX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
WORKING GROUP ON MARINE HABITAT MAPPING 3–6 April 2001
Name Address Telephone no. Fax no. E-mail Brendan Ball
Paul Boudreau* Marine Environment Sciences Division
Department of Fisheries amd Oceans
Bedford Insitute of Oceanography P.O. Box 1006 Dartmouth
Nova Scotia B2Y4A2 Canada
+1 902 426 7464 +1 902 426 6695 [email protected] mpo.gc.ca
Colin Brown
Craig Brown* CEFAS
Burnham Laboratory Remembrance Avenue Burnham on Crouch Essex CM0 8HA United Kingdom
+44 1621 787214 +44 1621 784989 [email protected]
David Connor Joint Nature Conservation Committee
City Road
Peterborough PE1 1JY United Kingdom
+44 1733 866837 +44 1733 555948 [email protected]
Cynthia Davies CEH Monks Wood Abbots Ripton Huntingdon Cambs. PE28 2LS United Kingdom
+44 1487 772409 +44 1487 773467 Station tel:
+44 1487 772400
Steven Degraer Marine Biology Section, University of Ghent K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35 9000 Gent
Belgium
+32 9 264 52 52 +32 9 264 53 44 [email protected]
Anthony Grehan*
Martin Ryan Institute National University of Ireland
Galway
Republic Of Ireland
+353 91 524411 +353 91 525005 anthony.grehan@nuigalw ay.ie
Brigitte Guillaumont* IFREMER -DEL/AO Centre de Brest
B.P.70-Technopole-Brest- Iroise
29280 Plouzané France
+33 2 9822417 +33 2 98224555 Brigitte.Guillaumont@ifr emer.fr
Eric Jagtman (Chair)* RIKZ
P.O. Box 20907 2500 EX The Hague The Netherlands
+31 70 3114217 +31 70 3114200 [email protected] venw.nl
Dick de Jong RIKZ P.O. Box 8039 4338 EA Middleburg The Netherlands
+31 118 672284 +31 118 651046 [email protected] enw.nl
Name Address Telephone no. Fax no. E-mail James Massey University of Glasgow
7/7 Grindlay Street United Kingdom
+44 131 2290086 +44 1274 677861 [email protected] om.
Dorian Moss CEH Monks Wood Abbots Ripton Huntingdon Cambs. PE28 2LS United Kingdom
+44 1487 772 408 +44 1487 773 467 [email protected]
Frances O’Beirn Marine Institute Snugboro Road Abbotstown, Dublin 15 Ireland
+353 1 822 8207 +353 1 822 5078 [email protected]
Yolanda Sagarminaga*
AZTI Foundation Avda. Satrústegui, 8 20008 San Sebastián Spain
+34 943 214124 +34 943 212162 [email protected]
Laurence Vigin * MUMM 100 Gulledelle
1200 Brussels- Belgium
+32 2 773 21 39 +32 2 770 69 72 [email protected]
Matt Service Department of Agriculture (NI)
Agriculture and Environmental Science Division
Newforge Lane Belfast BT9 5PK United Kingdom
+44 1232 255502 +44 1232 382244 [email protected].
uk
Liz Sides The Heritage Council Rothe House Kilkenny Co. Kilkenny, Ireland
00 353 56 70777 not available [email protected]
Hein Rune Skjoldal Institute of Marine Research P.O. Box 1870
N-5817 Bergen Norway
+47 55 236946 +47 55 238531 [email protected] o
ANNEX 3: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR 2001
C.Res. 2000/2:E:08 The Study Group on Marine Habitat Mapping [SGMHM] will be re-established as the Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping [WGMHM] (Chair: E. Jagtman, Netherlands) and will meet in Galway, Ireland from 3–6 April 2001 to:
a) review the results of the Second OSPAR/ICES/EEA Workshop on Habitat Classification and Biogeographic Regions (Southampton), the Second Aquatic Restoration and Conservation (ARC) Workshop on Habitat Classification, the Theme Session on Classification and Mapping of Marine Habitats, for consideration in the WGMHM Workplan, and will prepare material for a discussion on the various classification systems, their advantages and disadvantages, to be dealt with by ACME;
b) report on progress made in the joint WGMHM/WGEXT/BEWG plans on habitat mapping projects (habitat map of the North Sea, Wadden Sea, deep sea map, OSPAR area map to level 3 of the EUNIS classification system);
c) review the outcome of the ICES workshop on Deep-Water Survey Technologies and the development of standards for marine habitat mapping and initiate the preparations of guidelines for habitat mapping and data handling;
d) collate comments to the EUNIS classification system, including comments from BEWG, WGECO, and WGEXT, to be handed over to the EEA after review by ACME;
e) prepare a strategy plan for how to deal with pelagic habitats, taking into account the outcome of the Southampton workshop;
f) prepare a proposal for the development of a GIS database for habitats with cost estimates included and potential sources of data to be submitted.
WGMHM will report by 20 April 2001 for the attention of the Marine Habitat Committee and ACME.
ANNEX 4: STATE OF PROGRESS ON PELAGIC HABITAT CLASSIFICATION In the framework of joint OSPAR/ICES/EEA habitat classification workshops
Yolanda Sagarminaga (Spain) Galway, 3–6 April 2001
At the first meeting of the ICES Study Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (SGMHM) held in Oban, Scotland, from 6–
10 September 1999, in conjunction with a joint OSPAR/ICES/EEA Workshop on Habitat Classification (OSPAR/ICES/EEA, 1999), the pelagic zone was not discussed officially, but informal contact with workshop participants resulted in a proposed classification for pelagic habitats (A7).
During the second SGMHM meeting held in The Hague (The Netherlands) from 10–13 April 2000, it was pointed out that within the EUNIS habitat classification the pelagic zone had not been as developed as other marine zones, and a recommendation was made for further development of this item during the Second OSPAR /ICES/EEA Workshop on Marine Habitat Classification to be held at the Southampton Oceanographic Institute (UK) from 18–22 September 2000.
In the Hague it was suggested that when the Study Group on Marine Habitat Mapping [SGMHM] (Chair: E. Jagtman, Netherlands) would meet in 3–6 April 2001 at the Martin Ryan Institute of the National University of Ireland in Galway, Ireland it would be necessary to review developments in marine habitat classification and habitat mapping, and concerning the pelagic habitats in particular, to prepare a strategy plan for how to deal with pelagic habitats, taking into account the outcome of the Southampton workshop.
The work in Southampton was done in four parallel sub-groups on deep-sea, sediment, rock and pelagic habitats. These groups were set up to further discuss the current EUNIS classification during the duration of the workshop. Each sub- group produced a report of its work.
The sub-group for pelagic habitats comprised Dr Sabine Christiansen (WWF), Paul Boudreau (Canada), Dr Thomas Noji (Norway), and Yolanda Sagarminaga (Spain).
The proposals made by this group were the following:
1) The EUNIS classification system for pelagic habitats was substantially revised. The main reasons for this were:
• important habitat complexes, e.g., bentho-pelagic zones were lost at lower levels. Besides this, a problem noted with the current structure of EUNIS was that where level 2 in the benthic section had already been divided into several units, the pelagic section had only one.
Thus, the sub-group proposed to divide level 2 based on media/interface.
Media Interface
Air/water Neuston
Ice/water Ice-associated habitats
Water column Pelagic habitats
Water/seabed Bentho-pelagic habitats
Seabed Benthic habitats
• Preliminary classifications on ice-associated habitats and Neuston were proposed, but it was recognised that more development and expertise are needed, which applies as well to the bentho-pelagial zone.
NEUSTON Permanent/Temporal Neuston layer
ICE ASS. HAB. Brine Channel 1st Year/Multiyear Under-Ice Habitats - 1st Year/Multiyear
Fresh-water Ice habitats
• The current EUNIS version of the pelagic habitat classification relied largely upon geographical boundaries and references (enclosed, not enclosed, etc.) which did not express the fundamental tools for classifying habitats in the pelagic realm. The sub-group believes that it is important to base early decision-making steps in the classification key on ecologically relevant physical processes.
Due to the three-dimensional aspect of the classification of pelagic habitats, use of processes in key decision-making steps is much more relevant than referencing to fixed geographical features or points.
The use of process-related criteria facilitates modelling of pelagic habitats in the future.
The revised version more clearly reflects the sub-group’s belief that it is more important to characterize the water column rather than a water mass.
• It is essential to develop a pelagic classification system that can be easily linked to the benthic system of classification.
• Criteria adopted for a pelagic classification regarded:
i) Extent of vertical mixing as a disaggregator between shallow and deep waters;
ii) Residence time (long/short/medium);
iii) Gradients (horizontal and vertical);
iv) Temporal resolution (persistent/seasonal/ephemeral);
v) Freshwater influence;
vi) Light influence;
vii) Bathymetry.
The scheme developed in Southampton was presented by Ms. Sagarminaga at the WGMHM Galway meeting. Several amendments were made following discussions in the working group. This resulted in a revised proposal for a pelagic habitat classification, which is enclosed in this report as Annex 4.
• The criteria applied need to be reviewed and defined by additional experts. For example, residence time is used only in a relative sense in this version. More development of residence times in relation to biological development (e.g., Generation time of key species) is suggested.
ANNEX 5: PROPOSED ADAPTATIONS IN THE EUNIS CLASSIFICATION Presentation by Dorian Moss
EUNIS HABITAT CLASSIFICATION
CYNTHIA DAVIES & DORIAN MOSS
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY MONKS WOOD, UK
Aims of the classification:
• provide a common language
• enable mapping of units at a regional level
• comprehensive and applicable at different levels of complexity
• allow aggregation, evaluation and monitoring of habitat units
• provide a common framework: new information and links to other classifications
Relationships between classifications
EUNIS
•pan-European
•marine & terrestrial
•comprehensive to level 3/4
•non-legislative
•links to other classifications
•1996-2000 CORINE/PALAEARCTIC
•EU -> Palaearctic realm
•mainly terrestrial
•comprehensive and detailed
•non-legislative
•1986-1999
HELCOM
•Baltic Sea
•marine and coastal
•mainly abiotic
•Helsinki Convention
•1998
BARCELONA
•Mediterranean Sea
•marine
•comprehensive
•Barcelona Convention
•1998 BioMar
•British and Irish seas
•marine
•comprehensive
•non-legislative
•1996-1997
Habitats Directive Annex I
•EU•marine & terrestrial
•varying levels
•EU Habitats Directive
•1992 (from CORINE, 1989) EMERALD Annex I
•pan-European
•marine & terrestrial
•varying levels
•Bern Convention
•from Palaearctic, 1995
CORINE Land Cover
•pan-European
•marine & terrestrial
•3 levels, 44 classes
•land cover mapping
•1986-1994 OSPAR/ICES
•NE Atlantic
•marine
•started 1999
Principles of the classification (1)
• Classification is hierarchical
• Units at a given hierarchical level to be of similar importance
• Clear criteria for each division
• Logical sequence of units
• Use clearly defined non-technical language
Principles of the classification (2)
• Ecologically distinct habitat types supporting different plant and animal communities should be separated
• Habitats from different locations differing on the basis of geographical range only should not be separated
• Habitat units and habitat complexes are separated
Future plans
Stability at level 3 to allow proper feedback and field testing
• Fill in parameter frame with data from e.g BioMar and Physis databases
• Collate feedback from the website publication, ICES working groups etc.
• Incorporate relevant comments
• Explore how to link national systems to the EUNIS classification
POINTS TO REMEMBER
• Hierarchical structure and criteria
• Avoidance of duplication of biotopes
• Level 4 groupings of functional groups
• Level 5 groupings of detailed geographical variants
• Adequate geographical coverage
• Missing level 3 units?
• Expansion of level 3/4 titles to allow variants to be grouped together
• Defined parameters
Habitat classification website: developed at http://mrw.wallonie.be/dgrne/sibw/EUNIS/home.html
Contents of the website
More information on the EUNIS Habitat classification Main entries of the list of habitat types Key for identification
Criteria for identification of habitats (box by box and page by page mode)
Gallery of criteria diagrams Habitat search tool Glossary of terms Download
Key
List of habitat types
EUNIS links with Habitats Directive Annex I EUNIS links with Bern Convention habitats EUNIS links with the Palaearctic habitat classification EUNIS links with CORINE Land Cover
Using the web site
ANNEX 6: DRAFT EUNIS HABITAT CLASSIFICATION: CRITERIA FOR PELAGIC HABITATS (A7) TO LEVEL 3 REVISED at Galway meeting 04/04/01 (Note – units have been renumbered)
vertical none
Yes
short No
Gradient?
(a39) Interface?
(a34)
Yes Maximum mixing
depth greater than bottom depth?
A7 Pelagic water
column
air / water
horizontal substrate / water
Complex X?
Bentho-pelagic habitats (Defined by existing benthic habitats plus pelagic water units)
A7.2 Completely mixed water column with freshwater influence
A7.3 Completely mixed water column without
freshwater influence
A7.7 Coastal fronts with freshwater influence
A7.6
Vertically stratified coastal water column with freshwater influence No
vertical
none
A7.5
Unstratified coastal water column with reduced
salinity Freshwater
influence?
No
A7.4 Partially mixed water column with freshwater influence and medium or
long residence time
Gradient?
(a40)
horizontal
A7.9 Open-sea fronts A7.A
Vertically stratified open-sea water column without
freshwater influence
Residence time?
(a38)
medium / long
A7.B Unstratified open-sea
water column
A7.1 Neuston
Water column structure determined by freshwater
influence?
(a36) (number) refers to explanatory notes to the key
24 WGMHM Report 2001
